Posted
by
BeauHDon Monday March 14, 2016 @03:48PM
from the the-beginning-of-the-end dept.

An anonymous reader writes from Business Insider's article: Hackers affiliated with the Anonymous hacktivist collective have vowed to relaunch cyber-operations against US presidential candidate Donald Trump [on April Fools' Day]. They threaten to "dismantle his campaign" by taking his election websites offline in a large-scale and orchestrated distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack. In December 2015, Anonymous officially "declared war" on Trump after a radical speech in which he said Muslims should be banned from entering the United States. The operation at the time resulted in a number of websites being targeted by hackers, but failed to have lasting impact. A new video statement has been posted to YouTube which claims the "loyalists and veterans" of Anonymous have decided to ramp up cyber-operations against Trump -- dubbed #OpTrump -- on a far larger scale than ever before. "Dear Donald Trump, we have been watching you for a long time and what we see is deeply disturbing. Your inconsistent and hateful campaign has not only shocked the United States of America [but] you have shocked the entire planet with your appalling actions and ideas. You say what your audience wants to hear but in reality you don't stand for anything except for your personal greed and power."
The websites targeted in the attack (so far) include trump.com, donaldjtrump.com, and trumphotelcollection.com. In addition, the hacktivists are also planning to release some of Donald Trump's personal information including a SSN, phone number, and contact information of his agent and legal representative.

It is eerie how similar the Trump rise to the head of the ticket is to the Obama rise. From Iowa in 2008 nobody expected Obama to win anything, then, every state after that where Obama won it was an "upset" to the establishment.

I see the same exact thing happening again.

People want change and they love an underdog.

The more people tell them they are wrong, the more it cements their position.

Ive noticed this as well, its become more and more clear over the past 3 weeks that is the case. I blame Political correctness and SJWs for the rise in trump. its the rubber band effect. the side of political correctness has pushed too far, now its bouncing back in the opposite direction where people are starting to relate to trump due to what some see as non political correct and what others call hate speech. It was bound to happen

Ive noticed this as well, its become more and more clear over the past 3 weeks that is the case. I blame Political correctness and SJWs for the rise in trump. its the rubber band effect. the side of political correctness has pushed too far, now its bouncing back in the opposite direction where people are starting to relate to trump due to what some see as non political correct and what others call hate speech. It was bound to happen

And you'd be right. And it's the same reason why Rubio and Cruz lost somewhere around 1m twitter followers between them after they started going off on the "Trump is really the one responsible for what happened in Chicago bit." People are tired of the regressive left doing something, and everyone going "but they're really not to blame...IT'S THE OTHER GUYS...HONEST..." And the second that Kasich decided that the "Illegals are the bestest things evar, and I'm going pro-amnesty" he started dropping in in the polls and losing followers faster then a rock dropping from orbit. People have simply had enough of the establishment pulling this.

Couple of other examples to back up your point, would be the University of Missouri, and the 20% loss of first year students, the $32m budget shortfall, problems retaining students on campus. Their solution? We're gonna do everything we can to get students in! Tell your friends! The email from the temporary dean even went as far as saying that "anyone who'd applied would be accepted as a student." If that doesn't people what happens when absolute craziness from the regressive left and SJW happen, it should by that point.

its the rubber band effect. the side of political correctness has pushed too far, now its bouncing back in the opposite direction where people are starting to relate to trump due to what some see as non political correct and what others call hate speech.

If Republican voters find Trump to be the candidate who best embodies their political ideas, that's the fault of said voters and their party, not their opponents.

But it's always good to get a reminder of what conservatives actually mean by "personal responsibility": never their fault.

The Republicans have also been blamed for resorting to the
politics of hate. The best explanation I've seen has two
components:

1) The inclination of some people to turn to
authoritarianism [vox.com] when times get rough.

2) The concentration of wealth into fewer and fewer hands
is making things rough for the working class. Things aren't really
bad yet (like in the great depression) but people's prospects are
bleak. They are worse off now than they were 10 years ago without
much hope in sight.

If this simple analysis is correct then the problem is not Trump.
There are always Trumps around. The problem is that economic times
(more accurately, prospects) are bad enough that a sizable fraction
of the population is turning to a strongman/bully who promises
to protect them even if those promises don't make any rational
sense.

This has several implications. First, if there is a successful
large-scale terrorist attack in the US then this could easily
raise the overall level of fear enough to sweep Trump into the
White House. Second, if the powers-that-be stay in power and
continue their policies of transferring wealth away from the
working class then the levels of economic distress and fear
will grow, creating even more support for Trump or the next
authoritarian strongman/bully who comes along.

The only real solution is to stop waging economic warfare on
the working class. Unfortunately, even if Bernie Sanders gets
elected, it is going to be nigh on impossible to quickly change
the course of the best government that money could buy.

This is properly insightful and fact-based analysis. I would add a third component to Trump's rise: the development of an echo chamber on the right that prefers compelling stories to truthful stories. From Swift Boats onwards. While this phenomenon has always been around, the volume (in both senses) has increased dramatically, especially in the past eight years. By the time Trump came onstage, the audience was well and truly warmed up.

Indeed.
Obama ran on "Hope and Change".
Trump is running on "Make 'em Change".
Hell, even Bernie's running an anti-establishment campaign in most respects.
Unfortunately; Washington is so incredibly polarized that one person has no chance of effecting change, even if that person is the President.
Any time they try, their efforts are poisoned by the opposition and then blamed for the outcome. Obama's been learning this for the past 8 years, and you can bet it would be no different if Trump were to win.
People need to concentrate on Congressional races if we want to see any real change.
We need to vote out the "do nothing's" and the "hardliners" and vote in some players who understand the importance of compromise.
Then as we vote in these anti-establishment candidates to the Presidency, they might actually have a slim chance of delivering.

You might be able to count on the Congressional races, if by that you mean the House. But I doubt it. The Republicans have been very effective in gerrymandering districts. This makes me think they based their party on two lies: 1. they were popular because they looked at the House and the state governments and saw many Republicans, and 2. that the rank and file actually believed their philosophy after they chased most of the Bill Buckley types, who could think without blowing a gasket, out of the party leav

Except that in the Democratic primary race 8 years ago, Obama actually sounded like a sane candidate. Most candidates dropped out after Iowa. And from then on Obama was the front runner and never the underdog. But people didn't think of him as a frontrunner from some reason. Despite any possible Democratic candidate providing change over Dubya's administration, Obama was the only one pushing that message. Clinton was running on a campaign of "I'm the inevitable winner so you may as well vote for me now".

Most of the candidates other than Obama were longer term insiders than Obama, so that probably helped him out a lot. Probably a lot of people tired of both Bill Clinton and G.W. Bush years. Edwards in third place was the only other candidate to get any delegates, there was not a long drawn out multi-way race like we have this year with Republicans (and I swear, I can't remember a damn thing about Edwards campaign). Obama really was very similar to Rubio; first time senator yet treated like an outsider, young with appeal among younger voters, occasional breaches of established party doctrine, etc (I'd have expected Rubio to do much better if the Republican demographics skewed a bit younger).

As for Trump, he didn't even start as an underdog, everyone assumed he was just there because he was bored and needed something to do with his money. His incessant claims that Obama wasn't a citizen meant most politicians of all stripes thought he was a kook so he was ignored. But he never acted like an underdog, from the very start he campaigned as if he were the best and most popular candidate, he just will never shut up about his poll numbers. He actually acts more like a rabid dog than an under dog, always on the attack. And this is really confusing political pundits because he's doing everything wrong and it seems to be working.

It's working because he's tapped into two demographics Angry at Obama. Old white people who watch Fox News and think Obama is the second coming of Satan, and white supremacists. He's been endorsed by nearly every white supremacist political party. His rallies are FULL of white supremacist supporters. People yelling the N word and other racial slanders.

They like him because when an Asian American born and raised in the US with no accent asks him a question his first response is either "are you American" or "

It's working because he's tapped into two demographics Angry at Obama. Old white people who watch Fox News and think Obama is the second coming of Satan, and white supremacists. He's been endorsed by nearly every white supremacist political party. His rallies are FULL of white supremacist supporters. People yelling the N word and other racial slanders.

You are vastly understating his popularity. He's polling near 50% with Republicans, across almost _all_ demographics and _all_ states. ~25% of this country is not "old white people and white supremacists".

He gets the nomination and he's going to get absolutely stomped in the general election. What's funny is he's about as RINO as they come, he's always advocated NE liberal policies

These statements stand in stark contradiction. Once he doesn't have to pander to the base anymore, I see him as a strong general election candidate w/ across-the-aisle support. I also don't know why the Dems are so against him. Between Cruz and Trump, Trump has _far_ more liberal policies/tendencies. He'd actually raise taxes if they pushed for it.

I also don't know why the Dems are so against him. Between Cruz and Trump, Trump has _far_ more liberal policies/tendencies. He'd actually raise taxes if they pushed for it.

Perhaps because they are morally outraged by the idea of a politician rising to power on the back of policies last enacted by Nazis: bans on a religious group entering the country, a national register for a religious group, etc? I do know that my grandma, if she were still alive, would slap me in the face for forgetting our family's history and her murdered aunts, uncles and cousins, if I so much as contemplated voicing even mild support for Trump. And she'd be right to do so.

Whether he believes in these policies or sentiments is besides the point. He is creating a safe space for these ideas to creep back into political life, and that is a pernicious legacy that will cause great harm irrespective of whether he is elected or not.

I suspect that's his strategy. Despite the media portraying him as a looney out in right field, Trump is [huffingtonpost.com] actually the most moderate candidate [washingtonpost.com] still left in the race [ballotpedia.org]. Even you point out he advocates liberal NE policies. His stance on core issues aligns pretty closely with the American mainstream.

How does a moderate candidate get past the primaries to run for President in our polarized two-party system? By highlighting his few extremist views to appeal to extremists in one party during the primaries to win the nomination, then coming back to center in the general election to win over the mainstream.

It is eerie how similar the Trump rise to the head of the ticket is to the Obama rise. From Iowa in 2008 nobody expected Obama to win anything, then, every state after that where Obama won it was an "upset" to the establishment.

I see the same exact thing happening again.

People want change and they love an underdog.

The more people tell them they are wrong, the more it cements their position.

I honestly see almost nothing in common.

Obama came from relative obscurity starting small and expected to stay small, Trump was already a huge celebrity starting huge who people expected to implode.

Obama was seen as a current and future star of the party (just not the nominee that year), Trump was first seen as a joke and then an existential threat.

Obama sold hope, Trump sells fear.

Obama is a minority, came from a relatively middle class family, and stayed middle class for much of his adult life, Trump is white, from extreme wealth, and more or less stayed that way.

Obama's fundamental appeal was leading forward progress for a better tomorrow, Trump's is forcefully repealing progress to return to a better past.

Aside from the fact they were both underdogs they're almost polar opposites.

I agree. I think now is the time to go underground, train, and enhance our skills. This megalomaniac seems to feed on attention. Attacking him will only vindicate his authority. Once he steps out of line, we must infiltrate and dismantle his operation from inside.

Until then, we use every legal method to keep him out of power. Vote! Encourage others to vote. Don't let anyone stay home on the day of the election. We must have lots of power to subvert these angry masses and bring an end to the few who

My favourite trump moments:- Announcing that not only will he build a wall along the border, but he'll make Mexico pay for it.- -Suggesting doing so by seizing assets from Mexican companies in the US.-- Suggesting doing so by declaring war upon Mexico and just invading.- Performing a mocking caricature of a reporter's disability.-- Outright denying he ever did any such thing, even though it was caught on video, recorded, broadcast on national TV and uploaded to youtube.- Proposing that all Muslims should be forbidden from entering the country, regardless of citizenship, with the sole exception of those serving in the military.

I think that was the case back when they tried to raise a banner against the Mexican drug cartels a few years back... the nanosecond that shit got real (that is, when one of their Mexican brethren got a few subtle threats in real life, as opposed to online), they backed off and shut down that idea almost instantly.

It's one thing to wield some semblance of power if the thing you're trying to change is solely online, but once you go after changes off-the-wire, it's a whole different ballgame.

Quite. Has Anonymous ever actually achieved any meaningful lasting change? I can't think of anything they have ever done that hasn't gone straight back to normal after the DDoS was switched off, or someone they've doxxed has been off the front pages for more than a few days, got over any embarrassment, and had a chance to change passwords, phone numbers, etc.

They did seriously hurt the church of scientology. The church easily repaired the damage, but it left their reputation in ruins - not a shred of respect left for them, a laughing-stock. Their recruitment was hurt so badly they had to refocus expansion into the developing world, where people hadn't yet heard of their cultish ways.

Were they wearing brown shirts when they "declared war" on a candidate exercising his right to free speech? Have they forgotten why free speech is a good thing in the first place or are we just going straight to "thought police" mode?

>> contact information of his agent and legal representative

Um...isn't this information public anyway? What's an "agent" or a "representative" worth if they can't be contacted?

Were they wearing brown shirts when they "declared war" on a candidate exercising his right to free speech? Have they forgotten why free speech is a good thing in the first place or are we just going straight to "thought police" mode?

No, they wear masks. Guy Fawkes masks, to be precise. I wonder if they appreciate the irony of that position?

Were they wearing brown shirts when they "declared war" on a candidate exercising his right to free speech?

The irony here, is that the Nazis used disruption to come to power. The Nazis only had a few folks in parliament, but through disruption, they managed to derail the democratic process and grind the operation of government to a halt.

I bet these "protesters" would be surprised to learn that they are using tried and trusted methods of the Nazis.

And the most famous "Total War" speech I can think of was the one made by Joseph Goebbels.

Even Bernie said on the weekend, "You have a right to protest. You do not have a right to disrupt."

Now if only the people who think they are supporting him would only listen to him.

Are you *really* comparing the petty threats of Anonymous to deface a webpage, requiring a difficult and time-consuming restore from backup, to the methods used by the Nazi party in the 1920s and 1930s?

As much as I despise DT himself, do they not understand the impact of their self-righteous vigilantism?

If they'd just *quietly* attacked him, slowly DDOS'ing his sites and businesses, it could have been months before the news got out, all the while doing damage to the campaign.

But the "look how awesome we are fighting evil" grandstanding is going to resonate in PRECISELY the opposite way with the bulk of US voters who will - I guarantee you - sympathize with him against a 'shadowy internet mafia'.

The only way they're going to HURT him now is if you're able to hack the voting machines; thankfully Diebold almost certainly installed backdoors for (the Republicans/the Democrats/the Russians/the Illuminati/whatever cabal you prefer to fear) so maybe that's still possible.

I dont agree with some of the results of their work. But "quietly" doing something isnt an option for their style of organisation, which is basically an angry mob.

They need to get the word out and fire people up to have an effect.

There is talk by "experts" that hating Donald Drumpf only makes him more popular, but thats a pretty lame excuse, it wont scale. All the angry outsiders who are going to support him probably already do.

Obama orders ten times the number of air strikes as Bush, and nothing, killing thousands of Muslims (many of whom were non-combatants) and nothing . But Trump bloviates about banning Muslims and Anonymous loses their heads...

No, I'm not a Trump supporter. Yes, I support offering refuge to Syrian refugees.

I think having more drone strikes potentially reduces collateral damage. Killing people in small groups requires more strikes than striking weddings and funerals. Obama supposedly put a moratorium on strikes with a high potential for collateral damage (i.e. strikes on large groups of people). It will be interesting to see the statistics on numbers of people/civilians killed through both the Bush and Obama administrations.

Say what you will but Obama put in place some strict restrictions on strikes and he took the fight to the leadership, not the foot soldiers. His campaign effectively neutered Al Queda because the leadership had to stay in such strict hiding. Most of the Bush strikes targeted low/mid ranking fighters often in their homes with kids and relatives present.

Under Bush one of the first drone strikes targeted a man for being tall. Seriously, they shot a hellfire at a guy for being tall. They also routinely hit houses full of women and kids to get one guy. Under Obama the rules of engagement changed dramatically, the rules now require that there be no known civilian casualties. Most of the time now they watch people for days and wait for them to get isolated in a car with other fighters on some lonely highway before they hit them. The number of civilians killed in strikes has dramatically decreased. The Islamist routinely kill far more Muslims than the US now. In fact this was one of Bin Ladin's greatest fears and why he tried to stop Al Qaeda in Iraq was because they were routinely killing hundreds of Muslims including lots of women and children while the US was occasionally killing 4 or 5 fighters and no women and kids. ISIS has done more damage to the Jihadies sympathies with Muslims than the US could ever undue.Obama deserves credit for halting the indiscriminate killings with bombs and missiles and focusing his fight on the leadership. Something that Clinton had focused on and Bush had thrown to the wayside.

Under Obama the rules of engagement changed dramatically, the rules now require that there be no known civilian casualties.

You do know that this is achieved by decreeing that all males of military age are automatically considered militants? So the rules achieved "no known civilian casualties" by assuming that if you are killed then you were a militant. (Citation [washingtonsblog.com])

The number of civilians killed in strikes has dramatically decreased.

Citation needed -- including who counts as "civilian" in this decrease.

Obama deserves credit for halting the indiscriminate killings with bombs and missiles

Obama has appointed himself as a Judge/Jury/Executioner, and redefined words (such as "imminent threat" or "indiscriminate killings") rather than halted anything. Citation [nytimes.com]

So I'm not planning on voting for Trump, does that mean I have the right to dismantle his campaign, shout him down where ever he speaks and threaten to kill him like some have on social media? Nope. For all those ignorant asshats out there attempting to compare Trump to Adolph Hitler, or even a neofascist of any sort, go read a history book.
While Trump may not make for the best president, we have a system in this nation for selecting our leaders and it has worked pretty damn well over the past 240 years.

We've even survived bad presidents because there is a system of checks and balances.

As has been pointed out in several places, like NPR just this morning, the President can do a lot of things within his/her area of power/responsibility - that won't involve checks and balances - like deporting people and bombing places overseas, regardless of whether those things would be good for the US.

The group that is thought to have killed ORCA (Karl Rove's magic Republican Party database ploy to ficitiously win Ohio) was Anonymous. Their calibre of work is far, far beyond what this announcement promises. I suspect this is a False Flag operation aimed at boosting Trump "victimization" rhetoric while lumping in Anymous with supposed Mexican rapists and Trump's other favourite targets.

Standard disclaimer: I am not a Trump supporter. I think his statements are way too off the wall to be taken seriously, although I do like that he was the first to come out critical of H1Bs, but offhand it's the only thing I would say I've liked and can take seriously (or as serious as you can take anything he might say).

That being said, the groupthink paranoia about him is reaching amazing heights. I *still* put the odds of him winning the Republican primary at less than 50-50 and think his negative num

...and think his negative numbers are way too high to defeat Clinton or possibly even Sanders.

Actually, you should say "and think his negative numbers are way too high to defeat Sanders or possibly even Clinton." I say that because in hypothetical Clinton-Trump and Sanders-Trump matchups, Sanders appears to consistently fair better according to the polling data:

The only person who stands to benefit from this is Ted Cruz. Marco Rubio is already pretty much out of the race, Kasich is irrelevant. Taking down the Trump campaign at this stage won't benefit the democrats, either as they can easily defeat him in the general election. If the Trump campaign is somehow completely destroyed between now and the GOP convention the only person who would stand to win is Cruz, who also has consistently posted far better general polling numbers than Rubio or Trump against either Sanders or Clinton.

Furthermore, what is the benefit of destroying Trump right now when the GOP nomination contest is still officially undecided? It would make more sense to try to derail him later when it is down to the general election. If there is anything Drumpf hates above all else it is losing.

When will you knuckle heads stop playing with your dicks and wake up to how Trump operates? Conflict makes him stronger, and giving him yet another bogeyman to talk about just empowers him and expands his audience.

I bet he paints anonymous as a threat to democracy and all the patriots will go "Booyah!" in support.

Politics and humanity's future aside, this election is turning out to be THE most exciting one of my life-time.

In terms of entertainment value, I never thought they'd top Palin. I was flat wrong. She was just the warm-up act.

And it's not just Trump. Sanders adds a different spin, kind of like the grumpy Lorax who only comes out of the wood-work when things get too screwy, shaking his finger: "BEWARE!"

Dr. Seuss couldn't script a zanier election. (He'd run out of ink for Trump's hair anyhow.)

Outsourcing, offshoring, automation, inequality, leaky borders, and a confused mid-east together seem to be making a lot of people very nervous, giving non-traditional candidates attention they otherwise wouldn't get. The world is changing and the old ways of viewing things politically don't seem to apply anymore. The electorate is ready to experiment.

because no matter who gets elected the power behind the throne will still be in place, the global banking cartel & military industrial complex will still be telling the government what to do, and if they dont play ball guess what happens, yup, it happened to Abe Lincoln, & JFK, and RFK, they find some patsy to take the fall for an organized hit, the big money has been ruling this planet for hundreds of years and no election by a bunch of filthy peasants is going to change that

There's vigilanteism, and then there's disrupting an election. People attempting to silence political opinions that they disagree with are a far greater threat to civilization than Trump is.

I really don't want to take Trump's side on anything but in this case there is no contest.

Of course, the Trump phenomenon goes away on its own as soon as the Republican Party puts up a candidate worth voting for. The problem is they've never done that before and they don't know where to start.

To a certain extent I was a fan of some of Anonymous' shenanigans, but this isn't right. I am by no means a fan of Donald Trump, and the electoral system is far from perfect, but to have a third party with foreign membership fucking with our elections is a direct attack on our democratic ideals (flawed though they may be).

Anonymous - please fuck off. You aren't the Robin Hoods of the Internet any more.

That's funny. Your President is coming to the UK soon to strike fear into the UK population about voting to leave the European Union in our June referendum. Before you get all high and mighty about other people interfering in your elections please stop interfering in other country's business yourselves.

I do believe our President was invited to go to the UK. It's not a one-manned invasion.

Trump is not the enemy. He's just a reflection of the hate and desperation white working class Voters feel in the face of an eroding standing of living. Rubio, Cruz, Kasich. Their your enemies. They're the ones who openly attack the working class and drive down wages while raising taxes on the poor and working class. Take care of them, protect the Workers and bring back the middle class and the fear and hate Trump is reflecting back will dissipate in the wind.

The media, the republicans, the democrats and now Anonymous - they all don't get it. If you QUIT talking about Trump, quit showing him on the news he would become irrelevant and people would forget about him. The more people talk about him, berate him, attack him, show him all over the T.V. the more popular he gets.

If they REALLY want to get rid of Trump they need to IGNORE him! Just stop talking about him, stop putting his face all over T.V., he will just go away and people will forget about him. I mean really, it's not rocket science folks. But then again.... Maybe they all WANT hm to WIN. It could be you know....

We should be spending more of our time hammering the candidates about the problem with the H1B Visa program - like SHUTTING IT DOWN! This is what's really affecting people! Think Disney, Hertz, and all the others that are destroying American jobs for CHEAP foreign labor.

Among other things, "other people" are not running for President of the United States of America.

With Hillary, yeah, you could say "so what if she's corrupt as shit and lies through her teeth? Don't all politicians do that?" And I think most politicians today are at least somewhat like that, but I feel that she's worse than average, at least worse than average among Democrats. But still, if nobody better were running, sure, she might be the least of all evils and many people would overlook that, well, cause she's a Democrat with a capital D (it worked for Bill). And she's a Woman, too, and don't we all want to elect the first female president, regardless of who she is?

But actually, all of her scandals and the awkward things she says (to put it very politely, I really mean the incessant stream of bald-faced lies) are sort of never-ending, with another scandal or mis-statement right around the corner seemingly daily, and are signs of a much deeper problem. And that problem is the whole reason why so many people are so thoroughly disgusted with politics and the entire American political system in the first place. Therefore, since they're trying to change that oligarchic, plutocratic, corporatistic, corrupt, war-oriented system of power and money that's taken away our democracy and ignored the voters (aside from lying to them to try to get votes), and since she's the shining example of everything that is wrong with that system, why would they want to vote for her? Why would they refrain from calling out her corruption and lies every time they see them?

The Bush Administration hosted private federal government emails on Republican National Committee servers. When that was discovered, the data was subpoenaed in connection with the firing of US Attorneys in 2007. And the RNC wiped the data rather than turn it over.

How come every conservative has forgotten about this? They're all out for Hillary's blood without noting that she's following precedent by President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. I will gladly support her prosecution for this

She still hasn't released those speeches she gave to wall street - one of which she was paid $415,00 for. She only changed her position on same-sex marriage after it was obvious which way the wind was blowing. She sent secret information to people who were not supposed to be privy to it (to which the email server is just incidentally involved).

That's three to start.

The current FBI investigation [msnbc.com] has been going on since last August, but only confirmed in February. And this has nothing to do with republicans - this is an FBI probe under a Democratic president.

On the positive side, 8% of Americans say they like her, 7% describe her as capable and qualified, 5% as experienced, 3% as strong and 3% as a good politician. Smaller percentages consider her honest or smart.

Overall, 29% of Americans offer a positive observation about Clinton while 51% express something negative. The rest have either a neutral comment or no opinion. This loosely fits with her overall image among national adults as measured on Gallup tracking, which is 42% favorable and 51% unfavorable.

These are the same number she had in 2008, and she lost then. The only candidate with overall positive numbers as Sanders.

That sounds like you are admitting that they have nothing (because you are). I know that is ridiculous, because you would never admit that simple fact. I fucking hate the idea of Billary as President, but lets not pretend the reason she is bad is because she has committed crimes. Let's just admit she hasn't done anything out of the ordinary, and that is what disqualifies her.

I fucking hate the idea of Billary as President, but lets not pretend the reason she is bad is because she has committed crimes. Let's just admit she hasn't done anything out of the ordinary, and that is what disqualifies her.

I believe if an ordinary employee had done what she had done, they at minimum would have been fired, and potentially would have gone to prison. If they were a whisteblower, they almost surely would have gone to prison as retaliation: http://www.washingtontimes.com... [washingtontimes.com]

I also believe her "Foundation" is a tax-free piggy bank for her to pay salaries to cronies (at the minimum) that lobbyists looking for influence contribute to, on top of any money she or Bill makes from speaking engagements.

Fascist economics supported a state-controlled economy that accepted a mix of private and public ownership over the means of production.[176] Economic planning was applied to both the public and private sector, and the prosperity of private enterprise depended on its acceptance of synchronizing itself with the economic goals of the state.[177] Fascist economic ideology supported the profit motive, but emphasized that industries must uphold the national interest as superior to private profit.[177]

Totalitarianism. One-party State. Cult of Personality. Dictatorship. Militarism. Direct Action. Mixed Economy. Third Position. New Man. Social Order. So 10 out of 13. I didn't say Nationalism, because I believe the President and former SecState both believe in a one-world Government, thus Nationalism is really Globalism. But if you expanded it to Globalism, then it would be 11 of 13.

Who cares? RealClearPolitics also predicted Clinton with a 20+ point lead in Michigan [realclearpolitics.com], and you can see how that turned out. If polls this election season are proving anything, it is that the people who participate in polls and the people who actually vote are 2 different groups.

Even so, who cares about Clinton? According to that site, the only people she beats are Trump and Carson (who dropped out). Sanders beats any Republican opponent [realclearpolitics.com]. If the Democrats wanted to ensure that the Republicans lose then they would nominate Bernie.

If I were American I would vote for Sanders. However, if the choice was between Trump and H. Clinton it would be a close call, I'm not sure which of those I dislike the most. My guess is that Trump is a little less a warmonger than Clinton.

Except that with Clinton, you pretty much know what you're getting: more of the same. With Trump... there's no telling what he might do. He *might* make some interesting changes. He also *might* invade Mexico. Better off with Clinton. Things could be much worse, and with Trump, there's a risk they will be.

I understand he's paying the legal fees of the brownshirts who attack protesters.

Except that with Clinton, you pretty much know what you're getting: more of the same. With Trump... there's no telling what he might do. He *might* make some interesting changes. He also *might* invade Mexico. Better off with Clinton. Things could be much worse, and with Trump, there's a risk they will be.

Considering how insecure he is, such as publicly rebutting Rubio during the primary debate regarding the size of his member, all Iran would need to do to destroy the U.S. during a Trump presidency would be to taunt him saying he is too much of a wuss to handle a war with Russia. And his supporters would say nonsense like "Yeah! We gotta give it to those Commie Soviets!"

While Cruz has touted his hard earned anti-Washington bona fides, his campaign is straight from the Republican Party playbook. His stump speech and voter targeting has adhered with absolute fidelity to Grover Norquist rules. He pounds on the Second Amendment, religious liberty, reigning in entitlements and reducing the debt. He attacks federal intervention in education, gay marriage, and eminent domain. At the same time, he has offered a tax pl